Jsc on pins and needles

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:54 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:If it's a choice (which most scientific studies show it isn't), then you're still left with having to establish why your sexual choices entitle you to more rights & privileges than other people (you can't...at least not in a way that would satisfy the 14th Amendment).

You can keep braying that crap as long as you wish but the fact remains that the 14th Amendment has fuckall to do with granting marital rights or privileges to anyone, regardless of sexual preference. The Constitution simply doesn't do that.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:35 am

Mace wrote:
R-Jack wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote: Funny how you think this diverts attention away from other pressing issues.
Monsanto protection act is on line one
You mean what the Republicans slipped into H.R. 933 knowing that Obama would sign it to avoid a government shutdown, and also included the Violence against Women and S.N.A.P. assistance for poor families?

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/03 ... nding-bill

It seems that HR933 was inserted on a Democrat's watch.

The partisanship doesn't matter. What does matter is the irony of a discussion on marriage serving as a beard for seedy back door shenanigans

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:23 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
War Wagon wrote:It will be interesting to see what % of gay marriages end up in divorce court,
Higher than 50%? That's the number of heterosexual marriages that end up in divorce court now.

In any event, from a sheer numbers standpoint, there's no way that the number of gay marriages in divorce court will ever come close to the number of straight marriages in divorce court.

well, duh.

I should hope not as it would mean the eventual end of the human species is a foregone conclusion... but maybe that's not such a bad thing.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:36 am

Jsc810 wrote:merely because same sex marriages are recognized does not mean that incest and bestiality will necessarily follow. Those issues will stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof. The State will have to show good cause why incest and bestiality should be prohibited, and assuming they are able to do so, the prohibitions will remain.

But in your mind, apparently, it's an open question. One that should be debated by shit dick lawyers like yourself while being retained by NAMBLA.

I'd tell you to eat a shotgun but that would be narrow minded and bigoted. Instead, why don't you sit on the business end of one. You'd at least enjoy the foreplay, go out with a smile on your face

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:24 am

War Wagon wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:merely because same sex marriages are recognized does not mean that incest and bestiality will necessarily follow. Those issues will stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof. The State will have to show good cause why incest and bestiality should be prohibited, and assuming they are able to do so, the prohibitions will remain.
But in your mind, apparently, it's an open question. One that should be debated by shit dick lawyers like yourself while being retained by NAMBLA.

I'd tell you to eat a shotgun but that would be narrow minded and bigoted. Instead, why don't you sit on the business end of one. You'd at least enjoy the foreplay, go out with a smile on your face

And there we have it....

Thumper associates homosexuality with pedophilia & bestiality. Have any other ignorant & insipid insights, hick?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:47 am

we?

who do you speak for, other than yourself?

I speak for myself and I associate you with depravity. You earned that pederast tag for some reason and you never fail to reinforce that position.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:57 am

Like so many others before him, Wags will change his tune when his daughter comes out.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:03 am

Mikey wrote:Like so many others before him, Wags will change his tune when his daughter comes out.

I don't know, Whitey's quite dumber than uniquely seflish assholes like Portman, Cheney, etc.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:10 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Mikey wrote:Like so many others before him, Wags will change his tune when his daughter comes out.
I don't know, Whitey's quite dumber than uniquely seflish assholes like Portman, Cheney, etc.

True, his homophobia is more a consequence of truly deep seated dumbfuckery rather than political expedience, therefore a lot less likely to blow away with the shifting political winds.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:47 am

88 wrote: What legal authority did Lincoln have to proclaim the end of slavery in the US?

None, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do, and under the constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:31 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:And there we have it....

Thumper associates homosexuality with pedophilia & bestiality.

It's all abberant sexual behavior.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:42 am

88 wrote:What legal authority did Lincoln have to proclaim the end of slavery in the US?

Ah, the trick question. Lincoln never proclaimed the end of slavery in the United States. The 13th amendment did that. The EP was a strictly military measure damaging the logistical support of those in armed rebellion in those portions of the so called "Confederate" states which were not under Federal control effective January 1st, 1863.

Many, if not most, Union commanders were already in the habit to identify escaped slaves crossing their lines as "contraband," so the EP merely standardized the practice across the entire front.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:18 am

War Wagon wrote:You earned that pederast tag for some reason

What was the reason? I either missed it or forgot.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:11 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:What was the reason? I either missed it or forgot.

He was too busy pwning tards like Cuda and Whitey so desperate times call for desperate measures.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:21 pm

88 wrote:
Mace wrote:
88 wrote: What legal authority did Lincoln have to proclaim the end of slavery in the US?
None, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do, and under the constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
None.... constitutional authority as Commander in Chief... Good lord, Mace. Make up your mind.

And if Lincoln had that authority, why was the constitution amended?

What of Obama thinks a drone strike on you is the right thing to do?

Is this a fucking test? The constitution was amended to abolish slavery because the Emancipation Proclamation did not include all slaves, only the ones in states of which the Union army had gained control.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:02 pm

R-Jack wrote:Monsanto protection act is on line one

Common Core and the National Data Collection Model are on line two.

Be afraid.

Sin,

Big Brother

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:15 pm

Mace wrote:the Emancipation Proclamation did not include all slaves, only the ones in states of which the Union army had gained control.

Actually that's backwards. It only freed the slaves in states which the Union army didn't control. The slaves in the four slave holding border states which didn't seceed, the Virginia counties which would become West Virginia and various portions of Union occupied Confederate states were not freed by the EP. It also clarified the legal status of "contrabands" who crossed into Union lines.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:33 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
War Wagon wrote:You earned that pederast tag for some reason
What was the reason? I either missed it or forgot.

... or maybe you were stoned. It was either SCIII or the Cowduct's board where Diego first made reference to pre-schoolers tending to not realize how sexy they are.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:39 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:I don't know, Whitey's quite dumber than uniquely seflish assholes

were I inclined to wear a sig, this would suffice for a week or two.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:42 am

Cuda wrote:It was either SCIII or the Cowduct's board where Diego first made reference to pre-schoolers tending to not realize how sexy they are.

and there "we" have it.

~Cuda - board historian

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 am

Cuda wrote:maybe you were stoned.

Maybe?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:09 am

War Wagon wrote:
Cuda wrote:It was either SCIII or the Cowduct's board where Diego first made reference to pre-schoolers tending to not realize how sexy they are.
and there "we" have it.

~Cuda - board historian

Wags buying into imaginary stories?

Color me shocked...shocked I tell you!

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:43 am

I'm not the only one who remembers it, fucko

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:46 am

mvscal wrote:
Mace wrote:the Emancipation Proclamation did not include all slaves, only the ones in states of which the Union army had gained control.
Actually that's backwards. It only freed the slaves in states which the Union army didn't control. The slaves in the four slave holding border states which didn't seceed, the Virginia counties which would become West Virginia and various portions of Union occupied Confederate states were not freed by the EP. It also clarified the legal status of "contrabands" who crossed into Union lines.

That's right. I stand corrected.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:07 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:imaginary stories?

Then what's the real story? I vaguely remember all the hubbub when it all got started, but don't recall the details. It didn't just start with some poster saying "Diego's a pedo" out of the blue. You posted something that was either taken out of context or would legitimately lead readers to believe you were a diddler. What was it?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:07 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:imaginary stories?
Then what's the real story? I vaguely remember all the hubbub when it all got started, but don't recall the details. It didn't just start with some poster saying "Diego's a pedo" out of the blue. You posted something that was either taken out of context or would legitimately lead readers to believe you were a diddler. What was it?

C'mon Smackie....I thought you knew this story by now.

TfD used a script in chat to make it appear someone was in some made up room names (his were pedophilia-related names). After I expressed disgust at that due to a friend of my mother's having her g/daughter beaten to death by her sperm donor, it snowballed after that.

Cuddles....feel free to link us up with a link to where I did what you said.

Good luck with finding what never existed.

But your obsession with the subject of pedophilia is duly noted.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:12 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:C'mon Smackie....I thought you knew this story by now.

TfD used a script in chat to make it appear someone was in some made up room names (his were pedophilia-related names). After I expressed disgust at that due to a friend of my mother's having her g/daughter beaten to death by her sperm donor, it snowballed after that.

Never had heard that. Didn't know TfD or chat was involved at all. Thanks for clearing it up.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:27 pm

You're leaving out the 'Spray/Gangbang angle on the story...

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:08 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:C'mon Smackie....I thought you knew this story by now.

TfD used a script in chat to make it appear someone was in some made up room names (his were pedophilia-related names). After I expressed disgust at that due to a friend of my mother's having her g/daughter beaten to death by her sperm donor, it snowballed after that.
Never had heard that. Didn't know TfD or chat was involved at all. Thanks for clearing it up.

His "story" is flat out horseshit. Just thought I'd clear that up.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:23 pm

Cuda wrote:I'm not the only one who remembers it, fucko

Who else remembers? What board was it, and when?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:57 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:C'mon Smackie....I thought you knew this story by now.

and quite the "story" it is.

TfD used a script in chat to make it appear someone was in some made up room names..

I have no idea what any of this means. TfD? You could start there.

But I'll say that the "story" sounds so implausible, there just might be a grain of truth to it.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:33 pm

War Wagon wrote:I have no idea what any of this means. TfD?

Trolling for Dollars.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:09 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Cuda wrote:I'm not the only one who remembers it, fucko
Who else remembers? What board was it, and when?

mvscal might remember it, or maybe even Buttsy, Jokey might remember it, but he doesn't post here, possibly JSC810.

It could possibly have been SCIII, but more likely the Cowduct's old board (TOT?) I doubt it was Hostboard. It was almost certainly before IRIE's meatgazing admission.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:26 am

Wow! Cuda didn't need a troll in this one to hide behind. It was SCIII in reference to Pedo in Seattle.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:56 pm

88 wrote:[The word "marriage" can be defined any way a state wants to define it as part of its general police power so long as it does not involve racial classifications, which are prohibited by the post-civil war amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Yet it took the U.S. Supreme Court more than 100 years thereafter so strike down anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional. Ponderous, wouldn't you agree?

Marriage has always been defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.

Not always, or are you forgetting that polygamy was once legal?

The LGBT crowd wants to change the definition of "marriage" to include a new relationship, namely between people of the same sex. That is not an equal protection argument. That is a demand for a new right based on sexual orientation/preference, which has never existed in the common law or in statutes.

Homosexuals are prohibited from entering into the state of marriage based on sexual orientation. That is an equal protection violation, at least prima facie.

So I take it that you are cool with interpreting the 14th Amendment so as to require states to recognize relationships between two brothers, or a father and a son, etc. as "marriage"? There is no procreation issue there. How do you discriminate against incest using your jurisprudence?

You're either being intentionally obtuse here, or you fail to understand my argument.

As you know, the rational basis test (which is the most deferential to state action, and which I've conceded is the proper test here) provides that state action does not constitute an equal protection violation if it is "rationally related to a legitimate state interest." I've also conceded that states have a legitimate interest in protecting marriage.

With respect to same-sex marriage, however, I fail to see how an act which prohibits such marriages is rationally related to that legitimate state interest. And in fact, I don't believe you've ever argued that it is. OTOH, an act which prohibits incestuous marriages, regardless of the gender of the participants involved, likely is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, provided that the prohibition is not so onerous as to be unduly burdensome on the citizens of the state. In the U.S., first cousins seems to be a sort of de facto line of demarcation when it comes to incestuous marriages. As I understand it, virtually every state permits marriages between people who are more distantly related than first cousins, and prohibits marriage between people who are more closely related than first cousins. As between first cousins, some states permit marriage, others do not.

This makes sense in a way. Most of us know who all our first cousins are, as well as anyone related more closely than a first cousin. Beyond first cousins, however, it's at least arguably possible that you might not even know that you're related to someone.

And why weren't you and Jsc810 demanding that President Clinton be impeached for advocating for and signing DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other laws at the time?

Now you're just reaching. A few relevant points:

1. First, your history is a little off. Clinton initially proposed a complete abolition of the ban on homosexuals serving in the military (and if you believe that the ban actually prohibited homosexuals from serving in the military in practice, I have a bridge for sale, real cheap). He didn't wimp out with the DADT proposal until his first proposal ran into some opposition. And DADT was considered a step in the right direction, at least at the time.

2. The Constitution authorizes impeachment for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." As I read it, a criminal act is required for impeachment, and not all criminal acts are sufficient. Being on the wrong side of an issue, even the wrong side of history, and/or signing an act later held to be unconstitutional don't get you to the threshold for impeachment. Sorry.

3. Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me retroactive impeachment =

Colossal waste of time. Not a fan, sorry.

As I understand it, the primary sanction following impeachment and conviction is removal from office. The 22nd Amendment already took care of that in Clinton's case awhile ago. I get that you wish he had never been President, but at this point more time has elapsed since he left office than elapsed while he was in office. Let it go.

4. And even if that weren't the case, last I checked there is still a system of checks and balances. Bottom line, Clinton never gets the chance to sign DOMA unless both houses of Congress pass it first. So if you're going to impeach Clinton for signing DOMA, you should also impeach every member of Congress who voted in favor of it. Unlike Bill Clinton, many of those people still hold the same office they held back then.

Are the words in our Constitution so amorphous that they can be understood to mean diametrically opposed things in a span of just 17 years?

It took a little longer than 17 years, but Brown v. Board of Education held that the words in our Constitution mean the diametric opposite of what the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson believed that they did.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:48 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Homosexuals are prohibited from entering into the state of marriage based on sexual orientation.

No, they aren't. Any man can marry any woman assuming compliance with state laws regarding consanguinity and age of consent. Those laws are prima facie evidence that marriage can and is regulated by the individual states and that there is no federal jurisdiction.

The Constitution authorizes impeachment for "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors." As I read it, a criminal act is required for impeachment, and not all criminal acts are sufficient.

WRONG. "High crimes and misdeamnors" requires nothing more than an abuse of position or authority.

atomicdad · Post by **atomicdad** » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:39 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote: With respect to same-sex marriage, however, I fail to see how an act which prohibits such marriages is rationally related to that legitimate state interest.

It is about the soil and national defense, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Terry. You can't build on it, you can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on, Terry. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians. I swear to God.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:22 pm

88 wrote: Maybe that is why the power to determine the content of laws should be left to the People who have consented to live under them.

Only if those laws suit my queer agenda, regardless of what the overwhelming majority of the voters in 26 States may say.

~Gaysc24/7

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:11 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:
TfD used a script in chat to make it appear someone was in some made up room names (his were pedophilia-related names). After I expressed disgust at that due to a friend of my mother's having her g/daughter beaten to death by her sperm donor, it snowballed after that.

Can we get a translation on this paragraph please ?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:17 pm

Derron wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
TfD used a script in chat to make it appear someone was in some made up room names (his were pedophilia-related names). After I expressed disgust at that due to a friend of my mother's having her g/daughter beaten to death by her sperm donor, it snowballed after that.

Can we get a translation on this paragraph please ?

he said "pre-schoolers don't know how sexy they can be sometimes"

pay some fucking attention for a change